Talk:And you are lynching Negroes/Archive 3

Histmerge requests

 * This is not the place for history-merges. You will have to text-merge these archive pages. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Subject of this article
This article is about a logical fallacy of Soviet propaganda and making fun of it.

This article is not about legitimate criticism of the lynching. Therefore various references to lynching cited from Soviet press are irrelevant to this article, unless there are secondary sources which explain that these references (to lynching) were made in a hypocritical context. -No.Altenmann >t 04:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Into sentence
is pretty much meaningless, unless you already know the subject. Your first edit summary did not explain in sufficient detail why you changed the text. I double-checked the ref and confirmed it mostly says what was written in wikipedia. So I am reverting your revert (with minor update), unless you specifically say which exactly part is not supported by ref. -No.Altenmann >t 17:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My objection was that the phrase "anecdotal counter-argument phrases used by opponents to characterize statements"
 * The summary of what I did is pretty clear. Universaladdress (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

My recent edits are thoroughly supplied by references and in my opinion exactly say what references say. If you disagree, please point at specific edit. -No.Altenmann >t 03:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved the article back a month. I think most of the changes need some discussion paragraph by paragraph. --evrik (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And I restored. Yes, please discuss paragraph by paragraph. Otherwise next thing I move back two years. -No.Altenmann >t 03:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Revisionism
Why are people removing so much text and lobotomizing the article? --evrik (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
This article appears to be fatally flawed. I'm not a fan of the Soviet Union (I agree to a large extent with Noam Chomsky when he described the USSR as "a dungeon with a floor on human suffering"). But the WP article "And you are lynching Negroes" strikes me as an awful article. It appears to be nothing more than an ad hominem attack piece, nothing more than a vacuous piece of Orwellian-style propaganda. And the article relies upon induction, known around here as WP:OR. Some parts of the article are not supported by reliable sources, and the sources cited appear to be designed to block and preempt legitimate allegations of US cynicism and US hypocrisy by broadly and mendaciously painting any and every and all such allegations as ridiculous and thus illegitimate.

Take "And you are lynching Negroes", and invert it (i.e., perform a process similar to some extent to the spirit of WP: Boomerang), that is, replace every occurrence of 'soviet union' (or the other so-called 'communist' or 'socialist' countries appearing in "And you are lynching Negroes") with 'the U.S.,' and replace every occurrence of 'the U.S.' (or the 'West') with 'the Soviet Union,' and replace the phrase 'And you are lynching Negroes' with a mirror phrase such as 'And you are imprisoning dissidents in gulags', and replace every source ridiculing the Soviet Union with a mirror source ridiculing the U.S. (or the 'West'), etc. The resulting mirror-image article (titled 'And you are imprisoning dissidents in gulags') would be an ad hominem attack piece, just as the current article. Or in other words, both articles would be pieces of vacuous propaganda and intellectually empty garbage.

It is not my intent to attack or injure any editor(s). My only intent is to express the view that the article "And you are lynching Negroes" is fatally flawed. It is nonsense. Thanks, IjonTichy (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can reciprocate the joke. So what? Yes, it is used to poke and pry the Soviet Union. Unites States are poked as well, only in different ways. The fact is that the joke "And you are lynching Negroes" was NOT invented in the West to bug Soviets. It was invented by Soviet people, who were mocking the everyday propaganda from the inside. You cannot have even slightest idea what kind of life it was. There was no hunger (late Soviet Union), but it was shitty. And this article is shitty, because this joke is but one of many Soviet political jokes. And many of these jokes have the same degree of quotation and the same minuscule degree of scientific research.  -M.Altenmann >t 02:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Altenmann for your thoughtful response. I agree with almost everything you wrote. (By the way life was for decades, and is increasingly becoming more so, shitty for millions of Americans. And millions go to bed hungry every night. But the discussion of relative poverty and hunger in the USSR and the US is not relevant here, we can talk about this on the talk pages of the relevant articles, e.g WP offers a series of articles on inequality in the US.)
 * This article appears to imply a strong POV, Probably because it is too narrow in scope, and thus this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia in its current form. In my view we should try to  merge this article into another article (related to US-Soviet relations) with a larger scope. Can you recommend any such articles?  Regards, IjonTichy  (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If, when writing POV, you meant wikipedia policies, then please keep in mind that in concerns biased coverage, in particular, wikipedian's bias. If the subject itself is of biased nature, then there is nothing wrong when the article reflects this bias. The scope of this article is criticism of the Soviet Union. Criticism of the United States is covered elsewhere, and, unlike 50 years ago, people may easily find it in wikipedia with 5-6 mouse clicks. Please remember, wikipedia is not paper; information is presented differently.  -M.Altenmann >t 20:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As for merging, it is not about US-Soviet relations. It is in context of "Soviet World"/Western world". And this context (as well as US-SU) is simply too broad for a Soviet-era joke, one of many. My best guess for merge target would be "Russian political jokes". -M.Altenmann >t 20:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger tag removed
"I don't like the article and want it gone, but I've no clue what other article to disappear merge it into" is disruptive pointmaking. If you want to solicit comments, start an RfC. Propose merger only AFTER you know what you want to merge into what. 206.222.24.124 (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Merger tag restored. Please don't do it until the discussion finished. -M.Altenmann >t 16:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Read what the message above yours says. 162.212.10.108 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, Please don't do it until the discussion finished, or you will be blocked for disruption of wikipedia collaboration. -M.Altenmann >t 16:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected the article due to the edit warring. I'd suggest compiling a list of articles for the proposed merge, then create an RfC to discuss. Dreadstar ☥   19:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"Unbalanced" tag
Please present your arguments why you think it is unbalanced. Specifically, what, in your opinion, is missing from the article. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Keeping History section
The History section deleted on October 9th is obviously necessary to understand the topic of this page. In particular, removing it removes any way a reader can even understand what the phrase "And you are lynching Negroes" even refers to, which obviously makes the article worse. It also seems factual and well-sourced. I see no reason to delete it, and therefore I have restored it. Thelo (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)